36966 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 /Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Notices

Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Issued at Rockville, Maryland this 1st day

of July 1998.

B. Paul Cotter, Jr.,

Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety

and Licensing Board Panel.

[FR Doc. 98–18039 Filed 7–7–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–317 and 50–318]

Baltimore Gas & Electric Company,

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant

Units 1 and 2; Notice of Opportunity

for a Hearing Regarding Renewal of

Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR–

53 and DPR–69 for an Additional 20-

Year Period

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering the renewal of facility

operating licenses Nos. DPR–53 and

DPR–69, which authorize Baltimore Gas

& Electric Company (BG&E), the

applicant, to operate its Calvert Cliffs

Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP), Units 1

and 2 at 2700 megawatts thermal. BG&E

submitted an application to renew the

operating licenses for its CCNPP units

by letter dated April 8, 1998. A Notice

of Receipt of Application, ‘‘Baltimore

Gas & Electric Company; Calvert Cliffs

Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 & 2; Notice

of Receipt of Application for Renewal of

Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR–

53 and DPR–69 for an Additional 20-

Year Period,’’ was published on April

27, 1998, in the Federal Register (63 FR

20663). The renewed licenses would

authorize the applicant to operate

CCNPP Units 1 and 2 for an additional

20 years beyond the current 40-year

period. The current license for Unit 1

expires on July 31, 2014, and the current

license for Unit 2 expires on August 13,

2016.

Prior to issuance of the requested

license renewals, the NRC will have

made the findings required by the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

(the Act), and the NRC’s rules and

regulations. In accordance with 10 CFR

54.29, the NRC will issue a renewed

license upon its review and finding that

actions have been identified and have

been or will be taken with respect to (1)

managing the effects of aging during the

period of extended operation on the

functionality of structures and

components that have been identified to

require an aging management review

and (2) time-limited aging analyses that

have been identified to require review

such that there is reasonable assurance

that the activities authorized by the

renewed license will continue to be

conducted in accordance with the

current licensing basis (CLB) and that

any changes made to the plant’s CLB

comply with the Act and the

Commission’s regulations. The NRC, in

accordance with 10 CFR 51.95(c), will

prepare an environmental impact

statement which is a supplement to the

Commission’s NUREG–1437, ‘‘Generic

Environmental Impact Statement for

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants’’

(May 1996). A ‘‘Notice of Intent to

Prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement and Conduct Scoping

Process’’ was issued on June 10, 1998,

in the Federal Register (63 FR 31813).

As discussed further below, in the event

that a hearing is held, issues that may

be litigated will be confined to those

pertinent to the foregoing.

By August 7, 1998, the applicant may

file a request for a hearing, and any

person whose interest may be affected

by this proceeding and who wishes to

participate as a party in the proceeding

must file a written request for a hearing

and a petition for leave to intervene

with respect to the license renewals in

accordance with the provisions of 10

CFR 2.714. Interested persons should

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714

which is available at the Commission’s

Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. and at the local public

document room for the CCNPP Units 1

and 2 located in the Calvert County

Public Library, 30 Duke Street, Prince

Frederick, MD 20678. If the applicant

files a request for a hearing or if any

person whose interest may be affected

by this proceeding files a request for a

hearing and a petition for leave to

intervene by the above date, the

Commission or an Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board designated by the

Commission or by the Chairman of the

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

Panel will rule on the request(s) and/or

petition(s), and the Secretary or the

designated Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board will issue a notice of hearing or

an appropriate order. In the event that

no request for hearing or petition for

leave to intervene is filed by the above

date, the NRC may, upon completion of

its evaluations and upon making the

findings required under 10 CFR Part 54

and Part 51, renew the licenses without

further notice.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a

petition for leave to intervene shall set

forth with particularity the interest of

the petitioner in the proceeding and

how that interest may be affected by the

results of the proceeding, taking into

consideration the limited scope of

matters which may be considered

pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 54 and 51. The

petition should specifically explain the

reasons why intervention should be

permitted with particular reference to

the following factors: (1) The nature of

the petitioner’s right under the Act to be

made a party to the proceeding; (2) the

nature and extent of the petitioner’s

property, financial, or other interest in

the proceeding; and (3) the possible

effect of any order that may be entered

in the proceeding on the petitioner’s

interest. The petition should also

identify the specific aspect(s) of the

subject matter of the proceeding as to

which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for

leave to intervene or who has been

admitted as a party may amend a

petition, without requesting leave of the

Board, up to 15 days prior to the

holding of the first pre-hearing

conference scheduled in the proceeding,

but such an amended petition must

satisfy the specificity requirements

described above.

Not later than fifteen (15) days prior

to the first pre-hearing conference

scheduled in the proceeding, a

petitioner shall file a supplement to the

petition to intervene which must

include a list of contentions which are

sought to be litigated in the matter. Each

contention must consist of a specific

statement of the issue of law or fact to

be raised or controverted. In addition,

the petitioner shall provide a brief

explanation of the bases of the

contention and a concise statement of

the alleged facts or expert opinion

which support the contention and on

which the petitioner intends to rely in

proving the contention at the hearing.

The petitioner must also provide

references to those specific sources and

documents of which the petitioner is

aware and on which the petitioner

intends to rely to establish those facts or

expert opinion. Petitioner must provide

sufficient information to show that a

genuine dispute exists with the

applicant on a material issue of law or

fact. Contentions shall be limited to

matters within the scope of the action

under consideration. The contention

must be one which, if proven, would

entitle the petitioner to relief. A

petitioner who fails to file such a

supplement which satisfies these

requirements with respect to at least one

contention will not be permitted to

participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become

parties to the proceeding, subject to any

limitations in the order granting leave to

intervene, and have the opportunity to

participate fully in the conduct of the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 /Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Notices 36967

hearing, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses.

Requests for a hearing and petitions

for leave to intervene must be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, Attention:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or

may be delivered to the Commission’s

Public Document Room, Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW,

Washington, DC, by the above date. A

copy of the request for a hearing and the

petition should also be sent to the Office

of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001, and to R.F. Fleishman,

Esquire, General Counsel, Baltimore Gas

and Electric Company P.O. Box 1475,

Baltimore, MD 21203.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions, and/or requests

for hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer, or

the presiding Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board that the petition and/or

request should be granted based upon a

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.714(a)(1) (I)-(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application dated April

8, 1998, which is available for public

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20555 and the Local

Public Document Room for the CCNPP

Units 1 and 2 located in the Calvert

County Public Library, 30 Duke Street,

Prince Frederick, MD 20678.

Dated at Rockville Maryland, this 1st day

of July 1998.

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Stephen T. Hoffman,

Acting Director, License Renewal Project

Directorate, Division of Reactor Program

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–18066 Filed 7–7–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–261]

Carolina Power & Light; Notice of

Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment to Facility Operating

License, Proposed No Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination,

and Opportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License No. DPR–

23, issued to Carolina Power & Light

(CP&L or the licensee), for operation of

the H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant,

Unit 2, located in Darlington County,

South Carolina.

The proposed amendment would

revise Technical Specification (TS)

3.7.8, ‘‘Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS),’’ to

permit an 8-hour delay in UHS

temperature restoration period prior to

entering the plant shutdown required

actions. Also, for the duration of the

restoration, service water system (SWS)

temperature will be monitored hourly,

and should the temperature exceed 99

degrees F, the plant will enter TS 3.7.8

required action A.1, and be in MODE 3

within 6 hours.

Before issuance of the proposed

license amendment, the Commission

will have made findings required by the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

(the Act), and the Commission’s

regulations.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6), for

amendments to be granted under

exigent circumstances, the NRC staff

must determine that the amendment

request involves no significant hazards

consideration. Under the Commission’s

regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means

that operation of the facility in

accordance with the proposed

amendment would not (1) involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of

a new or different kind of accident from

any accident previously evaluated; or

(3) involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR

50.91(a), the licensee has provided its

analysis of the issue of no significant

hazards consideration, which is

presented below:

Carolina Power & Light (CP&L) Company

has evaluated the proposed Technical

Specification change and has concluded that

it does not involve a significant hazards

consideration. The conclusion is in

accordance with the criteria set forth in 10

CFR 50.92. The bases for the conclusion that

the proposed change does not involve a

significant hazards consideration are

discussed below.

1. Does the change involve a significant

increase in the probability or consequences

of an accident previously evaluated?

The proposed change does not involve any

physical alteration of plant systems,

structures or components. The proposed

change provides an allowed time for the

plant condition resulting from service water

temperature in excess of the design limit of

95°F. The Service Water System (SWS)

temperature is not assumed to be an

initiating condition of any accident analysis

evaluated in the safety analysis report.

Therefore, the allowance of a limited time for

service water temperature to be in excess of

the design limit does not involve an increase

in the probability of an accident previously

evaluated in the safety analysis report (SAR).

The SWS supports operability of safety

related systems used to mitigate the

consequences of an accident. An increase in

service water temperature in excess of the

design limit is expected to be small due to

the limited time allowed by the proposed

change in conjunction with the generally

slow rate of temperature increase

experienced from thermal changes in Lake

Robinson. Therefore, the proposed change

does not involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated in the SAR.

2. Does the change create the possibility of

a new or different kind of accident from any

accident previously evaluated?

The proposed change does not involve any

physical alteration of plant systems,

structures or components. The temperature of

the service water when near or slightly above

the service water design temperature does

not introduce new failure mechanisms for

systems, structures or components not

already considered in the SAR. Therefore, the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated is not created.

3. Does this change involve a significant

reduction in a margin of safety?

The proposed change will allow a small

increase in service water temperature above

the design basis limit for the service water

system and delay the requirement to

shutdown the plant when the service water

system design limit is exceeded by 8 hours.

There are design margins associated with

systems, structures and components that are

cooled by the service water system that are

affected. The service water system

temperature is an input assumption for

mitigating the effects of design basis

accidents. However, an increase in service

water temperature in excess of design limit

is expected to be small due to the limited

time allowed by the proposed change in

conjunction with the slow rate of

temperature increase experienced from

thermal changes in Lake Robinson.

Therefore, there is no significant reduction in

margin of safety associated with this change.

The NRC staff has reviewed the

licensee’s analysis and, based on this

review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration.

The Commission is seeking public

comments on this proposed

determination. Any comments received

within 14 days after the date of

publication of this notice will be

considered in making any final

determination.

Normally, the Commission will not

issue the amendment until the

expiration of the 14-day notice period.

However, should circumstances change

during the notice period, such that

failure to act in a timely way would